Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to take this time to respond to Senator Reid's juvenile attacks on my Judiciary Committee's investigations and to Senator Reid's frequent crying about my previous State Department holds.

Over the past several months, Senator Reid has been obsessed with mentioning holds on nominees--holds which I no longer have. Holds are often necessary to force the executive branch to comply with congressional investigations. If you want proof of that, just ask the Obama administration. In a Federal court filing during the Fast and Furious litigation, the Obama administration argued that the court should not even consider that particular case. The Justice Department's brief said courts should not enforce subpoenas at all. Instead, the Justice Department reasoned that Congress should use other powers to get documents.

Here is exactly what the government brief said: ``Among other powers, Congress can withhold funds from the Executive Branch, override vetoes, decline to enact legislation, refuse to act on nominations, and adjourn.'' Later in the brief, the Obama administration specifically suggested that Congress can ``tie up nominations'' in order to get documents.

If the administration can say that, why would Senator Reid think that is a wrong act for Congress to take? It is this simple: If the minority leader doesn't like Senators using holds to get documents from agencies, perhaps Senator Reid should talk to his friends in the Obama administration who suggested that in the first place.

In addition, Senator Reid shows his hypocrisy since Members on his own side have held up Obama nominees, and Senator Reid never said a peep about Democrats exercising their rights. Further, Senator Reid's attempts to politicize the Judiciary Committee's oversight work are very uninformed and result in misguided statements, and Senator Reid's accusation that taxpayer money is being wasted by engaging in oversight of the executive branch rings hollow.

Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server and private email arrangements effectively walled off her official communications from the normal Freedom of Information Act and other Federal recordkeeping requirements. So to Senator Reid, I say: The Freedom of Information Act is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and subject to oversight.

The former Secretary's use of a secret, private server to conduct all of her official business led to an avalanche of Freedom of Information Act litigation. It also caused inaccurate responses to Freedom of Information Act requests. For example, in December 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for records of Secretary Clinton's email addresses. The Department responded by stating: ``No records responsive to your request were located.'' That response is very misleading, at best. Senior Department officials knew about Secretary Clinton's use of private email for official correspondence since they were sending emails to her nongovernment email address. They would have known instantly of records responsive to that request that the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted. Yet those senior officials apparently failed to communicate with the State Department's Freedom of Information Act office. Even then, if State's FOIA office were to search Secretary Clinton's government email account, they would find nothing since she operated a private account not subject to freedom of information.

Separate from her email address, Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server was a secret to high-level officials at the State Department who were responsible for information technology and security.

These officials had no idea the Secretary was operating a separate unofficial system. She did not get their approval to do so, so how would they know?

The Judiciary Committee has interviewed the Chief Information Officer, the former Chief Information Officer, the former Deputy Chief Information Officer, and the Director of Diplomatic Security at the State Department. The Chief Information Officers oversaw the work of the information technology staffer who Secretary Clinton secretly paid to maintain her nonpublic server, yet all of these people knew nothing about that nonpublic server. That staffer didn't ask permission to have outside employment. While working at the State Department, he didn't disclose his outside income on his financial disclosure forms. Now, think about that. Officials whose job it is to know were kept in the dark about this ``home brew'' email server. If a government agency hopes to be transparent with the American people--and that is the point behind the Freedom of Information Act legislation--it must first be transparent with itself.

Now we know that highly classified material was transmitted to and stored on Secretary Clinton's secret server. What is important about that is this is an issue of national security.

State Department diplomatic security personnel have informed the Judiciary Committee that they were unaware of Secretary Clinton's using a nongovernment server for official business. So how, then, could they possibly secure it from security threats?

Now, the FBI is investigating this matter as well as several other investigations. We keep hearing that the FBI's inquiry is just a security review and not a criminal inquiry. So let me tackle that. However, one witness asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination rather than answer questions about his work on Secretary Clinton's secret server. And he is relying on the Fifth Amendment to withhold his personal emails as well. Recently, the Department of Justice granted him immunity. So, quite naturally, we are searching for other ways to get information before deciding whether it might be appropriate to seek an immunity order for his testimony.

Now, to Senator Reid: These are legitimate oversight inquiries for the Judiciary Committee.

Further, Secretary Clinton did not turn over all of her official emails. Emails between GEN David Petraeus and Secretary Clinton, which Secretary Clinton failed to provide to the State Department, were later turned over to the Defense Department. Secretary Clinton also failed to turn over emails with Sydney Blumenthal, whom Secretary Clinton views as an off-the-books intelligence resource, while Secretary of State.

If Secretary Clinton had used a government email address for official emails, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

So how many more official emails were not turned over but should have been? The Judiciary Committee cannot ignore these important issues simply because the former Secretary decided to run for President. And to be perfectly clear, I started this investigation before Secretary Clinton announced her candidacy.

Senator Reid suggested that the committee's work on these issues is a waste of money. Senator Reid, that is nonsense. Congressional oversight is not a waste of money; it is a constitutional responsibility. The minority leader fails to understand that Congress is obligated to oversee that the executive branch of government faithfully executes the laws and faithfully spends the money the way Congress intended. Without such constitutional oversight, Congress will not know if there are failures in the executive branch's duty to faithfully execute the laws that we pass.

But do my colleagues know what is a real waste of money? This administration fought tooth and nail in the courts against Congress for more than 4 years. Why? Just to avoid disclosing documents in the Fast and Furious scandal that they eventually turned over. That is a waste of money--a 4-year waste of money.

The Obama administration has fought against the press and watchdog organizations for years in the Freedom of Information Act litigation over former Secretary Clinton's email records.

Senator Reid, that is a waste of money.

It is shocking that the Obama Justice Department devotes so much taxpayer resources to avoiding the very transparency that President Obama promised on January 21, 2009--1 day into office. This administration was going to be the most transparent in the history of the entire country, and it has turned out to be the most stonewalling. None of that would be necessary if the administration would just comply with congressional subpoenas and the Freedom of Information Act. That is the way to save money.

By the way, I would like to ask how much taxpayers' money does Senator Reid spend having his staff write daily speeches trying to undermine the work of the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Reid also fails to understand that we are not only focused on Secretary Clinton. The committee is conducting dozens of investigations on a broad range of issues under the jurisdiction of the committee.

Some of the executive branch agencies have complained about the amount of oversight work the committee does on other matters. To justify my statements for this part of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters. The first is from the Department of Homeland Security, and the second is from the Department of Justice.

Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, November 18, 2015. Hon. Charles E. Grassley, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Grassley: Since I became Secretary of Homeland Secretary almost two years ago, I have worked to make the Department more responsive to congressional correspondence, directives, request for reports, briefings and hearings, and other requests for documents and information. Given that some 108 committees and subcommittees of Congress (depending on how you count) assert oversight jurisdiction over this Department, this is a full-time, time consuming task. We have also participated in about 100 hearings and over 2000 non-hearing engagements with Congressional members and staff since the beginning of the 114th Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged our increased responsiveness.

So far in 2015, I have received 46 letters from you alone-- almost one per week. I know because I read them all. Many of these letters request reams of information, data, and documents that take hundreds of hours and dozens of staff to compile. We work diligently to respond to your letters promptly, but there is a huge cost to this.

Senator, I ask for your help in focusing and prioritizing these oversight letters. I want to continue to be responsive to your requests, and I want to do so as quickly as possible. At the same time, I must ensure that my staff remains focused on all our other priorities.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you. Sincerely, Jeh Charles Johnson. ____ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, September 18, 2015. Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letters to the Attorney General, dated June 12, 2015, July 10, 2015, August 13, 2015, September 14, 2015, and September 15, 2015, regarding the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The Department of Justice (the Department) has provided responses in our letters of August 14, 2015, August 25, 2015, and September 11, 2015. As noted in those letters and discussed with your staff, we continue to collect and review information, including the information noted in your letters, so we may provide a complete and thorough response to all of your inquiries as expeditiously as possible. We will continue to keep an open line of communication with your staff as we work toward additional responses to your questions. The Department takes these issues seriously, and we thank you for bringing them to our attention.

As you know, this year the Department has received from your office almost 100 letters containing more than 825 questions and document requests, including the five letters received to date on this matter. While we have made and will continue to make all reasonable efforts to meet your stated deadlines, our ability to respond in a timely manner to your inquiries is impacted by the significant volume of letters we receive.

We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Sincerely, Peter J. Kadzik, Assistant Attorney General.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, both of the letters note the many dozen letters and hundreds of requests that I have sent, and both essentially complain about the volume of our investigation and requests for information.

The Judiciary Committee is hard at work doing the people's business, and the committee is doing much more than just oversight. The committee has reported 16 executive nominees and 37 judicial nominees. It has processed 27 bipartisan bills out of committee, and every bill that has come out of committee is a bipartisan bill. Eighteen of those bills were passed out of the Senate over to the House, eight of which have been signed into law by the President.

Just last week, the committee unanimously adopted bipartisan legislation to finally protect FBI whistleblowers who report wrongdoing to their supervisors and provide for independent review of FBI whistleblower cases for the first time.

So reviewing that record, it seems to me we can ask Senator Reid to justify his claim that this committee is partisan.

The committee concluded an investigation into the abuse and misuse of paid administrative leave. The committee took the results and worked hard with Members on both sides of the aisle to actually fix that problem.

In February, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved the bipartisan, commonsense reforms in the Administrative Leave Act of 2016. Similarly, the committee has worked with Democrats and Republicans alike to overturn an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that allows the agencies across government to stonewall their inspectors general.

Now let me tell my colleagues how Senator Reid is involved in stonewalling that effort. We came up with a legislative solution called the IG Empowerment Act and attempted to pass it in December by a live unanimous consent request. But Senator Reid objected to the bill even though it is supported by seven Members of his own caucus and supported by the New York Times editorial board and a host of civil liberties and good-government groups. Even the largest circulating daily newspaper in the home State of Senator Reid urged him to work with us on a compromise. But rather than engaging us in a productive and civil manner, Senator Reid publicly slandered the bill as a legislative overreach. He claimed that he was concerned about a provision that allowed inspectors general to issue testimonial subpoenas to fight waste, fraud, and abuse.

In fact, Senator Reid voted--Senator Reid actually voted--to give the exact same authority to the Office of Special Counsel in 1989. That 1989 bill passed the Senate unanimously and is now law.

Senator Reid, was that legislative overreach when you did it?

Like that bill, the IG Empowerment Act has near unanimous support and is designed to root out wrongdoing from government, while ensuring proper safeguards of the use of subpoenas. So there is no reason to object to this bill on policy grounds. Yet Senator Reid stands in the way of getting that done.

The Judiciary Committee will continue its work. I say that to just one Senator: Senator Reid. And during the course of my oversight work, I will use every tool at my disposal to obtain answers for the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source